I don't know what law dramas these guys are watching, but Batman Begins is definitely not one. And TDK is a crime drama with comic-book overtones, not The Good Wife in a Batsuit (Julianna Margulies in rubber...mmmm).
I always hate the word pretentious in these discussions. TDK fused real-world concerns with a Michael Mann aesthetic and used comic book characters to tell it's story. Is that pretentious? Is there no way superhero movies can aspire to be art? Should they not even try? Is solid entertainment (The Avengers) the best we should hope for?

__________________Bruce Wayne: [while on a boat surrounded by beautiful Russian ballerinas] You going to be all right Alfred? Alfred Pennyworth: [beat] You can tell them the Russian for "apply your own bloody suntan lotion."

If people are calling Nolans Bat films boring or pretentious or too serious, I quiver to think what the heck you guys watch outside of comic book films. Or if you even watch anything outside of the genre/action blockbusters.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

If people are calling Nolans Bat films boring or pretentious or too serious, I quiver to think what the heck you guys watch outside of comic book films. Or if you even watch anything outside of the genre/action blockbusters.

So you guys don't watch movies that are too serious? What's "too serious"? Because theyre still batman movies with loads of fun action. So if THAT is "too serious"..thats pretty funny.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

I think the debate on The Avengers and TDKT is getting quite ridiculous. I mean, when two of the most successful, wildly popular, globally iconic franchises start getting called "soulless" (The Avengers) and "pretentious and boring" (TDKT) it seems pretty darn silly to me.

Both are incredible and different people have different tastes. Get over it people.

Back on the topic of this thread, I'd like to feel more connected to Gotham. I want that feeling that I'm actually in the city. I'd like batman to be more intimately related and attached to it like Batman in the comics. Bale's Batman wasn't like that, he never thought of it as home and never intended to stay there, neither did Alfred want him there.

I'd like to see Batman actually scrambling across rooftops, more gliding and swinging and parkour. It would show Batman's skill and finesse while letting us feel like we are actually in Gotham City. In the TDKT, all we got were a few far away cinemetography shots of the city every now and then (which were beautiful, I'll admit). But I never felt like I was in the city.

I think the Raimi Spider-Man films did a good job of making us feel like we're in New York.

Of course he thought of it as home and always wanted to stay there, what do you mean?

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

Nope. In BB in the flashback he tells Alfred how he's only there for the hearing of Joe Chill, and is reluctant to be back in the Manor.

After training with Ras, on the plane ride back to Gotham Alfred asks if he's staying for long this time, to which Bruce replies "As long as it takes". That shows how he's only in Gotham for his mission that he feels he must accomplish, not because he feels Gotham is home.

In TDKR Alfred emphatically reveals how he never wanted Bruce to return to Gotham, that it's only pain and tragedy for him there. And it's very clear by the ending of Bruce leaving Gotham to Florence/abroad with Selena that once his job was done in Gotham, he is now free to leave, and he does.

There was no sense of him feeling very attached to Gotham or very intimately related to it. He never says "my city" or any such possessive wording.

Contrast this to the Batman of the comics, who is very often shown to be one with the city, knowing its every alley and corner, it's history intertwined with the Wayne legacy, and how so many times "Gotham" and "The Batman" are synonymous. He says things like "my city" and often even refers to the city as a figure in his life, such as "she and I have grown old together..."

I'd like to see more of that in the reboot. I'd like to add I wasn't criticizing TDKT at all, it's just a little change I'd like.

Yes he does say MY CITY. In the pit "while my city burns, with no one there to save it". Of course he feels an intimate attachment.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

He does feel attachment to his city. As Shauner pointed out, he says "My city" in TDKR.

Also, him saying "as long as it takes" does not mean that he would leave Gotham. He was referring to Batman. He would be Batman for as long as he takes but he wasn't planning on leaving. Heck, his original plan was to be with Rachel when he quits. He also left Gotham in the first place so that he could come back with the training required to clean it.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

If people are calling Nolans Bat films boring or pretentious or too serious, I quiver to think what the heck you guys watch outside of comic book films. Or if you even watch anything outside of the genre/action blockbusters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

So you guys don't watch movies that are too serious? What's "too serious"? Because theyre still batman movies with loads of fun action. So if THAT is "too serious"..thats pretty funny.

It's a very good point. When I use "pretentious" with reference to the Batman trilogy, it is to describe an ambitious/artsy concept that simply hasn't worked very well (i.e. the 99% critique in TDKR), but I certainly agree that there is nothing "high-brow" about those movies.

As for them being "too serious": it's Batman. The premise is an emotionally stunted orphan meting out violent revenge against a hoard of twisted psychopaths. Avengers style fromage would be about as welcome as a stomach ulcer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafizbat

I think the debate on The Avengers and TDKT is getting quite ridiculous. I mean, when two of the most successful, wildly popular, globally iconic franchises start getting called "soulless" (The Avengers) and "pretentious and boring" (TDKT) it seems pretty darn silly to me.

Both are incredible and different people have different tastes. Get over it people.

I don't understand why the $ucce$$ of anything is deployed as a trump card to defeat all criticism.

We know it is a matter of opinion. We are discussing our opinions. Somebody wanted the next Batman movie to learn something from The Avengers. I am entitled to turn all my fanboy loathing on that suggestion.

Yes he does say MY CITY. In the pit "while my city burns, with no one there to save it". Of course he feels an intimate attachment.

Ok, my bad he did say "My city" once. Still doesn't change all the evidence. Also, Alfred asked "Are you COMING BACK for long, sir?" not "Are you going to be batman for long?" so yes, he never intended to stay there permanently. Add to that his retirement and leaving Gotham forever and I don't see how you can say he meant to stay in Gotham for life....he didn't.

And while he obviously cared about the city (why else would he devote his whole life to saving it?) that doesn't mean he has an intimate, personal relationship with it...I'm talking about knowing every little secret of the city, the buildings being his playground, etc.

I don't understand why the $ucce$$ of anything is deployed as a trump card to defeat all criticism.

We know it is a matter of opinion. We are discussing our opinions. Somebody wanted the next Batman movie to learn something from The Avengers. I am entitled to turn all my fanboy loathing on that suggestion.

That doesn't mean this thread has to turn into a flame war of Avengers vs TDKT, where both are getting lambasted. That's not the purpose of this thread....If you want to bring up the Avengers, at least do it in a way that benefits the discussion of the Batman reboot, rather than going on and on about how "Assembly line" Marvel is and how every movie is a big advertisement for the next It's been going on for a couple pages now.

Also, I'd like to add that the reason that "$ucce$$" is "deployed as a trump card to defeat all criticism" is because said success is a clear indicator that, while the subject in question may not be flawless, it is indeed beloved by a VAST MAJORITY of people, and therefore criticizing it to death is rather worthless. It's important to keep in perspective that this is all ENTERTAINMENT, with the main goal being that the audience is entertained.

Yes, I'm aware that it is entertainment. What else do you suppose I am assessing it as? The relevance of the comparisons between the Batman trilogy and The Avengers is to the tone and approach that we think the next Batman movie should take. That is "on topic" as the term is generally understood. If you are seriously worried about the direction this discussion has taken, then run to a mod.

I don't understand your second point. I have said that I am aware the movie was popular, but that doesn't change my opinion of it. Your counterargument seems to be to tell me that the movie is popular. Your insinuation is that we must all agree with the majority. I think that is a dangerous road.

I'm with hafizbat on this one; the whole argument is silly. Some people like Avengers, some people like TDKT, some people even like both (I, for instance, enjoyed BB and TDK for what they were), and no amount of picking apart is going to make either side change their mind. I honestly would never even have mentioned Avengers if I knew it was going to be this controversial. I just meant that I wanted a slightly more upbeat tone, nothing more or less. It's okay to use the two as examples for what tone we want the next film to have, but taking up thread pages just to nitpick both movies to death is both pointless and stupid, not a good combination.

To take personal preference out of it, here's a new question for discussion: Do you want the new Batman movie to be dark and gritty, upbeat and fun, or some combination of the two?

IMO, the problem with the Schumacher movies was not that they were "fun", but that they were stupid and insulted the audience's intelligence. BTAS was also "fun", but it treated the audience like adults and gave them people and stories to be invested in, and it also has that "dark imagination" MD mentioned. To me, the Schumacher lesson is not "Don't make Batman movies fun", but rather "Don't make idiot movies just because the guys in marketing told you to."